150 years ago, the north would have had the UN's support for the human rights issues being committed by the south. In today's day and age, you think a state leaving the USA would be allowed to be shot up to keep them? Seriously? They'd ask for UN assistance for violation of basic human rights, and the whole world would watch as the US empire collapsed.

As for veto - they don't hold the UN crown. Each country in the UN can decide to act however they see fit. If there is pressure from the rest of the world - based on legitimate reasons - as to why they should intervene, then they will. The US flagrantly ignored the UN in their unwarranted invasion of Iraq (Dubya's Crusade) - and earned the mistrust of the world in that.

The USA would be severely hurt by economic sanctions - you have no idea what kind of impact that has to the populous. Can you imagine food, fuel, import costs going through the roof as the world market shuts you out? You could see an exodus of people to Europe or Canada, given the similar cultures without the restraints. Major corporations not wanting to be tied or restricted by US government decisions that they don't agree with may well uproot (eg: when Quebec was talking separation stating they had significant market clout, companies like Bombardier went on record indicating if Quebec left Canada that they would move offices to Canada).

You think open-market gas prices are going to affect your elections this year? Just imagine what it'd be like when you can't sell to most UN nations, or buy from them. When all of a sudden it's not the people coming in, but the people leaving that you're most worried about. The problem with fence-building is that when you need to hold people in (East Germany / USSR, I'm looking at you - though ATM it's not a direct parallel), they want out that much more. When the US is falling behind in tech and living standards and can't trade, you'll find that the outlook is far more dreary.

Iraq wasn't big enough to cause this, neither would be mistreatment of native Americans. It would be embarrassing for sure and may contribute to an overall perception later down the line.

Like I said, the States do a *lot* of good things in the world, not just at home. I don't hate the stars-and-stripes, but warmongering and blatant disregard for the rest of the world isn't the best course of action IMHO.

Well, that went a lot of different places, but I don't agree with your logic or conclusions.

You're the one who said, "If a state wanted to leave the United States, they could do so, and revoke jurisdiction from the federated government." Again, that's factually incorrect. The UN has zero input on this. I don't even see it as a point of discussion.

Each country can decide to do what they see fit. But that wasn't the discussion, was it? UN-based sanctions, peacekeepers...none of it applied because we can veto any attempt. So the attempt wouldn't be made.

Economic sanctions? Please. That's about as likely as the world coming to an end on December 21st. The US is still the world's largest economy by a factor of two and the largest consumer. Countries won't turn away their largest customer because their own economies would suffer drastic failure. It's all interconnected - the failure of most economies in trying to "cut off" the US would be far more drastic than the damage to the US economy. So your attempt at fear-mongering about oil, food (we produce food for other countries) and so forth have no real-world basis. It's an absurd proposition based on today's reality. That might be different 50 or 100 years from now, but then again some UN report about Native Americans won't matter in 50 or 100 years from now either.

Furthermore, the US has the world's most powerful military and continues to (grossly) overspend on it so that half of all of the defense spending in the world is done in the US. So if a smaller organization (OPEC) tried to cut off the US from oil and caused enough pain, the US would just go and take it. I'm not saying might makes right, but that's what would happen. Once something is a clear and present danger to the US, the reaction of the US government (no matter who is in office) and the general population is predicable - fucking kill it. Remember, this is coming from one of the few who was actually against the Iraq war because the reasons given were outright bullshit. So I'm not a warmonger, but most of the USA is.

I entirely agree with your last statement - the warmongering and the blatant disregard for the rest of the world's opinion hasn't served the US well. There was an enormous outpouring of sympathy from 9/11 that was wasted during Dubya's Crusade, never mind the thousands of US lives and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives. Arrogance isn't necessarily the best world policy and Obama showed during the Arab Spring that working with and through others can lead to success rather than unilateral actions. In other words, I'm not big into chest thumping and saying "we're the best".

But that wasn't the point. The point was that the UN, as an organization, has about zero influence in the US due to the veto power and the general impotence of the UN. The individual countries of the world can do little more - they can spout rhetoric or wring their hands, but in the end it amounts to nothing. But in today's reality, the US can still do pretty much what it wants, no matter what the rest of the world thinks. Economically, militarily - the penalties for trying to seriously threaten US interests just outweigh any benefits. Because if it comes down to a war of attrition - either an economic war or a military war - you can't win against the US. The best you can hope for is mutual destruction, and we all know about MAD. So even if the UN found that wholesale genocide of Native Americans was still taking place in the USA today, the sad reality is that nothing would come of it.

The UN has 4 main purposesTo keep peace throughout the world; To develop friendly relations among nations; To help nations work together to improve the lives of poor people, to conquer hunger, disease and illiteracy, and to encourage respect for each otherís rights and freedoms; To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations to achieve these goals.

"Jurisdiction" implies rights. They are not a governing body, unlike the United States. If a state wanted to leave the United States, they could do so, and revoke jurisdiction from the federated government. In the case of the U.N., it is a council of nations whereby they use influence and voting to try and stem bad behaviour. They can call for sanctions against a nation who is embroiled in what it perceives to be harmful behaviour. They can deploy peacekeepers anywhere they want, so long as there is support. Jurisdiction has nothing to do with aid. They can call for leaders to step down, but in all of this the UN is there to prevent the past from repeating itself where a malevolent force can grow unimpeded.

The United States has shown over and over a flagrant disregard for the UN process (eg: the WMD in Iraq), and while I have no idea how the plight of the Native Americans will impact the U.N., it will certainly help shed light on human rights for these people. If it's self-inflicted, then this may provide justification for steps to be taken. This doesn't mean the UN is going to step in and take over the States and replace your existing government with a provisional government.

The US could be severely hurt by sanctions against them. At this point in time, it isn't the lynchpin of the market that they have been in the past and that means they need to be concerned with how their nation is perceived. I think a big problem is that the USA does a lot of good and its overlooked - instead they are being measured by the bad. It isn't fair, but in all of this I would expect the UN to simply study the facts in this Native American case, and leave the rest of the politics outside the sphere of influence.

That, at least, would be the best situation.

As an example, here in Canada we have agreements that allow the aboriginal people to self-govern, but there needs to be accountability for protecting and providing for their populous. An investigation may help put the focus on supporting the people who are being abused by the systems in place - regardless of whether it be by the Canadian Government, the First Nations, or their own tribal councils.

As pointed out the whole "they could leave" thing was settled about 150 years ago. No, they can't.

I think you're over-analyzing my use of the word "jurisdiction" here. Maybe that's not the correct word. The point is that the UN is absolutely toothless when it comes to trying to enact or pressure the US into any changes, no matter what they find in this report. Sanctions, peacekeepers...nothing will happen because we can veto anything we want. When it comes to the US, the UN is toothless.

You also misunderstood the term of "self inflicted". There are many problems with the Native American community in the USA. Like any culture that suffered population losses for more than 300 years (it was only around 1917 that births were greater than deaths in US for Native Americans) and massive discrimination, there are many institutional things that are wrong. In no way am I demeaning the losses that both Nature and Man inflicted on the Native American population.

At the same time, my experience suggests that there are a huge number internal issues that prevent the Native American community from succeeding, regardless of any external institutional issues. Oh my, are there internal issues...

For example, when I worked with the Southern Ute tribe, they argued constantly about the internal distribution of the fund from their oil, gas and water rights. They had all of these side businesses that were like personal fiefdoms, but weren't run with any kind of profit motive in mind. Profit didn't matter. Perceived power and status mattered. There were constant arguments and battles over unbelievably petty things. But yet no Native American ever got fired or even apparently disciplined for incompetence, theft or for anything (so it seemed). But God pity you if you weren't a Native American. As an outsider, if you were caught saying "hello" to the wrong department or person it was entirely possible you'd get terminated. In over 20 years of public and private business experience, it was the most dysfunctional organization I've ever seen or even heard of. The closest thing I've experienced to that in the business world would be like the Royal Saudi family...all of that power, money and land and absolutely no idea how to manage it or take advantage of it.

The UN is to conduct an investigation into the plight of US Native Americans, the first such mission in its history.

The human rights inquiry led by James Anaya, the UN special rapporteur on indigenous peoples, is scheduled to begin on Monday.

Many of the country's estimated 2.7 million Native Americans live in federally recognised tribal areas which are plagued with unemployment, alcoholism, high suicide rates, incest and other social problems.

The UN mission is potentially contentious, with some US conservatives likely to object to international interference in domestic matters. Since being appointed as rapporteur in 2008, Anaya has focused on natives of Central and South America.

A UN statement said: "This will be the first mission to the US by an independent expert designated by the UN human rights council to report on the rights of the indigenous peoples."

it'll be interesting to see how this turns out, and I wonder how pushy the UN will really get over things they decide need changed.

The UN can't do shit. They have no jurisdiction and our ability to veto any actions makes them a paper tiger without our ok.

I will be interested to see their report. I spend 3 months with the Southern Ute tribe a couple of years ago and there were an asston of self-inflicted wounds there. They're the wealthiest Native American tribe in the country and they couldn't find their ass with two hands, a search warrant and a scouting party.

I'm out. I've requested a cancellation of the pre-order and uninstalled the beta. I think a few here are glossing over the stress test aspect of this open beta (which is exactly what it's called on the Diablo 3 website - not a "stress test"). It's an open beta as declared by Blizz - and it simply doesn't work.

I don't think 11 different error codes and 45 minutes of actual gameplay (over 7 hours of trying to get in) bodes well for the actual release. Frankly, it's an unmitigated disaster and I've not seen any open beta - MMO or other - perform so poorly in this decade. There's no reward or bonus for pre-ordering and I play this single-player, so there's absolutely no reason not to keep my money and wait this out. If/when they fix the problems,great, I'll reconsider. They may have them fixed by May 15th - I hope they do for the benefit of those who are sticking with it. But at this stage, I'd have to say that this is the biggest FAIL open beta in recent memory. All Blizz convinced me of was that they can't handle the one thing I was most concerned about - the online always component of the game - and failed to impress me with any evolution or revolution of the genre. I had more fun replaying Titan Quest this afternoon than I did playing D3.

As such, the only way I'll end up playing on release is if I can't get the pre-order canceled for some reason.

So far I've not contributed to any kickstart programs. The business model doesn't work for me - "I'm thinking of making this game, so contribute a few hundred thousand dollars to my kitty and maybe I'll make it." The whole kickstart model will go belly-up the minute someone decides they can't make that game and keeps the kickstart funds. I'm more than happy to buy their game when it's a finished product - or perhaps even in beta on very rare occasions - but not before.

That's a fair enough opinion... but man, I think you guys are all crazy. It's advertised as an open beta/stress test, it's advertised there may be connection issues, they're clearly not doing all the things they'll do at retail for uptime, so if you bail now, based on something that has advertised and admitted differences to the way they'll handle retail, I think you're making a mistake. Just one man's opinion, of course - but y'all nuts.

I understand what this is supposed to be. But from a consumer's perspective, this sucks and there's no other way to put it. I've had the game preordered since December, yet I've not been invited to any of the other betas. Ok, that's not exactly great, but I'll deal with it. So this is my first chance to see the Diablo 3 experience I'll have in less than a month. The thing that's concerned me as a prospective customer is the "always online" aspect of the game since I only play single-player Diablo. If not for that, I'd have no concerns about D3.

So what's my experience? Well, in the last 4 hours (off and on), I've seen no less than 8 error codes - 300008, 37, 3008, 3004, 31300, 33, 61 and something else (didn't write it down) - and zero game play time. So if this is at all indicative of the game play experience I'll have in less than a month, why the hell would I want to keep my preorder? I'd expect some bugs, disruptions and so forth in an open beta/stress test, but not this level of disruption.

There's a difference between a stress test and presenting something that's utterly broken to prospective customers. If the stress test was an effort to get me to cancel my preorder, Blizz is getting close to "success"

I started this morning at 6:45AM and couldn't create a game. I repeatedly got Error 300008 or something like that. I never could get a game to start and so I went to run a 5k.Then I spent 20 minutes trying to log in and getting Error 37 (sounds like I'm not the only one).Now I finally made it past the login screen, but I'm getting Error 3008 and can't start a game.

So the results are thus far over an hour trying to play the game, 3 different error messages, no play time. Color me unimpressed.

I'll give it a bit more time, but If it's this crappy on 4/21, I don't have much hope for it being smooth on 5/15. It's easy enough to cancel my preorder and transfer the money to another game.

I remember not so long ago, that when I go to a store/website and purchase the game, that money went towards the production of the product and any profit would be invested into their next game.

Then there was DLC, where they give you a portion of the game and expect you to buy the rest in incremental packages.

Now it seems the trend is that they expect the consumers to give them money to make the game, then if that wasn't enough, you had to buy the finished product, and I'm sure DLC is involved somewhere.

And we as gamers accept it as if it's a great idea.

Pretty soon, they're going to expect the gaming community to code the game for them, yet still pay them the $$$ for our work.

Oh, DLC is involved:

Quote

If the project reaches the goal, he will then be eligible to receive the following rewards (when released):Kickstarter exclusive in-game "Officer's Medal"Special Will-O'-The-Wisp petHigh resolution digital mapSmall fold out paper map of the world of CairnFirst expansion DLC free when releasedSpecial Edition box, with physical game and soundtrack discs

This just sounds like a friggin' rip-off to me. "Hey, you preordered the game for $48, but now we need another $52 to finish it. Oh yea, we'll give you the DLC if you do this *and* we reach our goal."

Fucking patch borked my entire install, even though I downloaded via the GOG installer. I went to install the patch, it said "corrupted" and "rolled back" the Witcher 2 install - which means fucking it up so it doesn't run. Now I'm stuck trying to download the whole thing again, except the GOG downloader won't start. Urge to kill rising...

So they are taking preorders but have not said anything about the launch date or when/how many betas that will get you into if you buy?! Sounds like selling a pig in a poke to me. I will preorder at some point but they're going to have cough up some more info first.

So yeah Knighshade we want to know the release date and when/how many beta weekends are coming.

Yeah, I want those answers before I preorder. If it's July - August, I'll preorder. If it's around Christmas, then I'll ask for it on my Christmas list.

Black, I have not played anything like this, it does not sound like anything similar either.

But, I think I may be missing something. Maybe I will give the demo a try or something to see if it seems to grab me or not.

If you've played SimCity, it's along the same lines. If you haven't, then this is virgin territory for you!

There is a demo for 2070 that has the first 2 missions in it. Consider that the complexity of the game play increases pretty steadily as you go, so the first 2 missions should just give you a feel for the (very basic) gameplay and the graphics. The real skill/strategy doesn't kick in until around a half dozen missions in the game and it keeps ramping up from there. I'm 5 or 6 missions in the game, haven't unlocked half of it yet and it's still challenging.

If you play the demo and you're still not sure you want to drop $40-$50 on it, you can find Dawn of Discovery out there pretty cheap (Amazon and GamersGate $20 download for the Gold edition, though I got it for $6 on sale) . DoD is called Anno 1404 in Europe and is the predecessor to this game. It features the same gameplay, though it's set in the middle ages and not in future times. I liked DoD but I think I really prefer the setting, theme and interface improvements of 2070.

This is good one to try out and cut the teeth on? Simlier to game like civilization, but without the war and such?

No, it's really not like Civilization. More like a cross between SimCity and The Settlers (which you probably haven't played either). It's all about growing your population while carefully building your supply chains, managing your economy, overcoming resource scarcity and fitting all this in a limited amount of space. It's played at a far more deliberate pace than typical TBS games and it's really just about figuring out the logical puzzle to overcome any given scenario.

Case in point - my last game. I'm on my island (you're always on one or more islands) and I have my population built up, but I have a major problem - I'm bleeding cash fast. I have an island full of techs, but we're not able to grow because (1) my fish are poisoned (quest that I'm working on) and (2) the resource I need to let my techs take the next step in their development isn't abundant enough. So I'm mothballing buildings to save on cash, but it's still not working. So I get my fish edible again, but I'm still in the hole. I'm down to 10k cash and if I don't get this turned around, I'm toast.

But now with the fish problem solved, I can attract a different type of population - the ecos, who split when the fish went bad. So I demolish half of the houses for the techs, slap together a couple of buildings that the ecos want (concert hall, tea farm) and rebuild the demolished tech houses as eco houses. The ecos move in, are happy because all of their needs are met and so they jump to the next level (most populations have 3-4 levels), which brings in a ton of tax revenue. At the same time, the remaining techs aren't competing for the same resources, so they have more of what they want as well - and they start to take the jump to the next level. In the span of 5 minutes, I go from running a $300 deficit to a $400 surplus.

Now while this is the decision that helped me win the scenario, this wasn't the "goal" of the scenario. This was just the corner I had backed myself into and what I needed to do to get out of it so I could actually complete the scenario objective (which was entirely different). This is only one of dozens I'll make in any given scenario...and I'm still working through the campaign and there's still a ton of stuff to get unlocked. Later on, it's going to get really complicated.

I'm not sure if that sounds interesting or not, but I like it because it's pretty complicated, puzzling and creative all at the same time. It's one of the few strategy games that I've played in the past 30 years where I don't mind starting a scenario, seeing that my decisions aren't quite panning out as I had planned and so restarting it.

I got this on sale from Origin this weekend - less than $19 for the Collector's Edition (whatever that means). I originally figured that I wouldn't get it until it was $10 (anti-DRM stance), but I had a weak moment and I really enjoyed what I played of Dawn of Discovery. So I spent a bit of free time this weekend giving it a go and this really is a top notch game (at least through the first 5 missions or so). Even if the players are nothing more than charactertures, the story is interesting enough. I like the revamped interface, which shows the chains that you need to build. It's fairly complex, but not punishing. The option to build industry/eco/lab and above/below the ocean gives you a ton of options.

I get frustrated with those folks who treat games like ravagers...go in, harvest the resources, then move on, leaving chaos in their wake.

Heh that's an interesting perspective. Gamers are to blame for the crappy MMOs that don't hold long term interest. Or am I misinterpreting that statement?

I interpret his statement the following way: A majority of MMO gamers these days consume the content within 3 weeks of the game release and then move on. I've seen this become a trend these past few years. I saw it happen in 'Rift' last year, where there was much excitement about the game, people got to 50, burned out, and were gone from the server within the month. I don't understand why people want to burn thru a MMO so quickly. I like to take my time getting to max level. Months even. But most gamers these days get to level cap in two weeks and then complaint there's nothing left to do. It just makes me shake my head.

At the same time, I'd argue that the game is the problem if players can "get to the level cap in two weeks". Fast leveling is overrated - the common perception is that players don't want a longer leveling time, but there are many benefits - to gamers, to the community and to the developers - to a long leveling cycle.

1. This ain't Mass Effect or Counterstrike, folks. The head shot parade was insane and defied belief. Trying to shoot zombies in the head while driving 20-30 MPH over rough terrain isn't going to happen. Also, how many shots does that rifle have, Hershel? 25? 30?

2. Jimmy's death was moronic. You pull over into a herd and don't even have the door closed?

Ok, I could forgive those two...but this next one almost ruined it for me.

3. Lori's reaction was again evidence of horrible, sloppy writing where there's no consistency. Just a few episodes ago she was telling Rick to essentially kill Shane. Now she's upset when the deed is done in self-defense? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Even my wife, who is much more forgiving than I am, said that was "dumb".

But at least "Teh Stupid" was covered up by some good zombie action.

Also, I was wondering if anyone else caught this. In Episode 1, Rick sees a helicopter in Atlanta and starts to gallop after it. That's when he turns the corner and meets up with a huge pack of zombies and has to take refuge in the tank. That's the real start of his zombie journey, which put him at the farm. This pack of zombies followed a helicopter (I believe it was the same one) out of Atlanta and, like Rick, ultimately ends up at the farm. I just thought that was interesting and some nice consistency.

Ok, I played it all the way through, continuing my "Perfect Paragon" from ME1 > ME2 and now ME3. The overall game was great, but the ending is a different story. It's probably the worst ending since FO3 and a contender for top-10 sucky endings of all time. The suckiness of the endings exists of a number of different levels (of hell).

1. There are additional endings, Arkon. Some are supposedly better than the ones that you mentioned. But the really "good" endings are entirely out of reach unless you play multiplayer. Needless to say, I'm rather displeased by that fact. In fact, I'm outright incensed. It's fucking inexcusable that I am cut off from single-player endings because I don't want to play some shitty co-op version of Mass Effect.

2. The ending doesn't make much sense, no matter what you choose. Some weird conversation with SpookyBoy, which results in overblown shitty solutions to a problem. After 3 games of choice, it seems that you don't have a choice of actually discussing this with SpookyBoy and helping him to see how fucked up his shitty solutions are? Talk about pulling the rug out from under the player! Listen you little twit, send the Reapers home and beam me back to Earth! I couldn't even shoot the little fucker.

3. Yeah, they all end pretty much the same way...with some of the Normandy crew staring at some strange planet. Even those who were on the ground fighting with you. Uh, how?

4. It's fucking absurd that there's no endings save game and that you're forced to replay the entire (unskippable) confrontation with the Invisible Man. I went through that misery twice - the second time I ALT-TABBED out and manually copied the autosave file so I could restore from the SpookyBoy discussion.

5. Didn't Bioware think that players would want to be rewarded after 3 games and perhaps 150 hours invested in a character? Is that so hard? Let my FemShep and Liara settle down somewhere and live out their lives in peace. They deserve it. But no, Liara is doomed to starve on some god-forsaken world while FemShep dies? Fuck you, Bioware.

I've played ME2 3 times. ME1 twice. I have pretty much all the ME2 DLC. But I have no desire to replay ME3 because I know that shitty, horrible ending sequence is waiting for me.

6. What really sucks is that I'm going to end up paying $15 to get the "real" ending to this saga in a DLC. I'll pay it because I'm emotionally invested in the ME universe and my character. But it pisses me off to no end and any goodwill built from this series goes right out the window.

Bioware's said (claimed?) repeatedly there is no ending difference. You "just" need to get X amount of assets during the SP game to get the "best" ending, if you chose to ignore MP altogether. Now they they aren't more specific about the 'X' assets you need, I don't know, I'm still trying to ferret that out at their forums.

I won't argue the merits of linking SP to co-op or back (I agree they should just keep them separate, as I don't see that it's doing anything but upsetting players -- so I understand if it's just the basic principle of linking the modes in some way that bothers people), but if anyone is just refusing to even try the co-op for some reason, try it. It's great fun, even with just 2 players. And you'll get the 100% galaxy whatever if you play for a few hours each day over a weekend.

If you're worried about jerks, I think anyone we've listed in the co-op MP thread I started on this would be happy to play with you, and you'll have a good time. If you don't like listening to headset chatter, go into options and mute all microphones. If you're worried about lag, I wouldn't be; the co-op game is shockingly fast on even medicore systems (i.e., mine ) and reliable in my experience and most others I've chatted with. In the end you paid your $60 or whatever for a game that has (imho) a wonderful 3rd person, cover-fire, crazy-powers and upgrades, co-op MP experience. Don't waste it.

Certainly I'm coming at the game as someone with little ME experience (just a little on ME1 and declined to get ME2), so you can shush me off as the ME Noob. But the co-op experience is more to my fun-factor tastes for now. fwiw, if they said I had to complete the SP campaign to do this or that in co-op, I'd be annoyed as well.

In this case, Bioware is full of shit if my experience is accurate. There's two ratings - readiness and military strength. The total rating is simply multiplying the readiness by the military strength. There is *nothing* you can do in the single player game to increase readiness. Nada. Zip. Zilch. So while I had a maxed out military strength bar, but didn't get some of the better endings simply because I didn't have enough total rating to get those choices. Therefore, in my view, the only way you can get a "great" ending is to play multiplayer. That's just flat out wrong.

I'm not "worried" about playing co-op, I just don't want to do so. And I shouldn't have to just to get a better ending in a single player game.

Ok, I played it all the way through, continuing my "Perfect Paragon" from ME1 > ME2 and now ME3. The overall game was great, but the ending is a different story...

...no, I'm not going to spoil it for you. But I'll say that it seems that the really "good" endings are entirely out of reach unless you play multiplayer. Needless to say, I'm rather displeased by that fact.

To me it's more about EA's attitude than about the quality of Origin. I refuse to support companies that treat me like shit, which means both EA and Ubisoft currently get the middle finger from me. I'm continually amazed at how many people proclaim that you should "vote with your dollars", yet almost nobody has the backbone to actually follow through. I do, and I will.

I agree. If you think that EA treats customers unfairly, then you have every right to withhold your money. I know EA is generally a shitty company - especially as it related to their online play and forum posting policies - but those don't impact me so they don't bother me too much. Origin isn't a great piece of software, but it's not horrible.

I'm right with you on UbiFAIL and Stardock and I was a happy when the asswipes at JoWood went out of business. I don't support those companies, though occasionally someone will buy me a game from one of them.

My Adept continues to be entirely awesome as well. Even carrying a heavier pistol, I still have sub-three-second cooldowns on Lift, Throw and Warp (the attack animations take nearly that long to run anyway), so I'm hurling people about constantly. Unless something goes wrong (i.e., we pick bad cover locations), I get through most fights without ever firing my gun

Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good sniper rifle at your side, kid. I'm still early in the game, but every unshielded enemy I've met has died from one headshot with my rifle, as an Infiltrator.

Hehe...then you're not too far into the game, because soon you won't be able to see the heads of some of your foes!

I wonder if that's starting a player from scratch in ME3 or with an imported save. It *shouldn't* make a difference, but in my particular case it very well may as I'm starting with a "perfect paragon" ME1-ME2 import.

Still, yeah, if that's the case Bioware should be slammed for that decision.